tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 3, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
quorum call: mr. sessions: madam president, i would ask that the quorum callen dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: today the judiciary committee of which i am a member voted out the nomination of leon rodriguez to be director of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services, uscis. this agency has been at the
center of collapse of immigration enforcement in america, and mr. rodriguez, if confirmed, it seems certain will continue to accelerate that collapse. i think i it is an important ise for all of us to talk about. it is really not so much about him personally, but that's what a going to be asked to do, what has been happening at homeland security, of which uscis is an important part, and how it's impacting the rule of law in america, immigration enforcement in america or nonenforcement. it is a very serious matter. what i am going to say today is based on my best judgment of how and why it's happening and why this congress needs to speak up about it. let me read from "the washington post" just a few weeks ago -- a few months ago in december the
article in the "washington post" is headlined this: "federal workers' job satisfaction falls with homeland security department ranking lowest again." it goes on to say, "federal employees who deal with homeland security matters remain some of government's least satisfied as overall workforce morale hit its lowest point in a decade, according to a report that began ranking agencies on such issues in 2003." it goes ton say, "the department of homeland security, a per are inial bottom dweller in the best places to work in the federal government rankings marked its third consecutive year of decline and its second straight year of being last among the 19 largest agencies." now, this is not acceptable. and i raised it with secretary napolitano repeatedly at the
hearings. and i would remind my colleagues that the other -- another one of the three -- four immigration agencies -- the immigration and customs enforcement service -- their officers association unanimously voted "no confidence" in their then-director john martin, mainly because he refused to allow them to comply with their duty under the law to enforce immigration law in america. so we had the director of i.c.e. and you'll learn, the director of uscis, and i suggest the homeland security director investing their time and effort in seeing that the laws of the united states are not enforced, rather than being enforced. and this gentleman is not prepared to lead this job, if he were to be supported in his
activities. but in fact he is sent here not because he's not going to rock the boat. he'll be given this position to continue this policy of nonenforcement, even against the will of the officers who serve under him. it is the last thing we should be doing is putting someone in a critical law enforcement position, as these are, who doesn't know anything about it, number one, and who is going to carry out president obama's policies, which is fundamentally not to enforce the law. i know people would think that's an exaggeration, but i'm going to talk about it. we're going to keep talking about it. we're going sthoa what th goinge facts are. this is a serious matter. mr. rodriguez is not a trained
administrator. he's never led a police department. he's never led and managed a real law enforcement agency. he's been a prosecutor in white-collar crime cases. he served several years in the civil rights part of homeland security, but he hasn't managed the officers out there on the ground trying to deal with violent criminal aliens and get them deported and all the gimmicks that they use to get around that. he was a chief of staff to mr. perez, the head of the civil rights division and department of justice. mr. perez himself is nearly a radical pro-amnesty, nonenforcement leader himself. they were both members of casa demaryland, which is a very much pro-amnesty activist group that proposes ideas that are
outside the mainstream. so soon i assume majority leadr reid will bring this nomination up for a vote in the senate. and it will be a important moment. senators will vote to defend the integrity of -- will the senators vote to defend the integrity of the immigration laws we passed or will they help install someone to one of the most important positions in government who will further erode and undermine those laws? this is the question we're dealing with. and we need to be honest about it. i don't think there's any mystery here. first, mr. rodriguez lacks the normal background and experience for a position like this. he just doesn't have it. i'm not saying he's not a good civil rights lawyer or white-collar crime lawyer, but he doesn't have the leadership to lead and agency like this. his only apparent encounter with
immigration was his service on the board of casa demaryland which encourages illegal immigrants to the defy law enforcement. a very active group. tellingly, mr. rodriguez refused to answer questions regarding whether he believes that an illegal immigrant who is ordered deported -- so he wouldn't answer the questions in any direct fashion dealing with these questions. you have an illegal immigrant who is ordered deported or convicted of a felony criminal offense or convicted of multiple misdemeanors or convicted of a single sex-related offense or convicted of a single drunk driving offense or known to be a gang member should be eligible for legal status in america. that's a pretty fair question to ask a nominee to this important position, because uscis evaluates people to whether or
not they have the requisites tocrequisites tobe given legal d citizenship pathway in america. mr. rodriguez would not even say whether someone who has been denied legal status should be deported. so they come in and ask for legal status and they're turned down. he was asked, do you get to stay in the country or should you be deported? there's only one teens this. if you're not eligible to be in the country, and you've been -- had your hearings and you've been denied legal status, there's only one answer. and that's, you should be deported. so these shouldn't be difficult questions for someone who wants to head an agency that is charged with ensuring the integrity of our immigration system. now, the president has summarily suspended entirely portions of immigration law, however,
granting unilateral reprieve to people based on everything from family connection, age of illegal entry, and criminal record. he just issues an order. "the los angeles times" reported earlier this week on the collapse of interior enforcement. they reported -- quote -- "immigrants living illegally in most of the continental united states are less likely to be deported today than before obama came into office." close quote. boy, that's an understatement. that's an absolutely fact. and he went ton tony on to stat, "expulsions of people who are settled and working in the united states have fallen steadily since his first year in office and are down more than 40% since 2009." close quote. really a lot more than 40%. they went on and quoted the former acting director of u.s. immigration and customs
enforcement john sandwig who left a little over a month ago. a top official in the obama administration, as saying this, "if you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero." close quote. well, this is a guy who held an important position in the department of homeland security whose duty it is to identify people who are here illegally. in effect, the administration's policy is that unless you commit a felony or other serious crime, you are free to illegally work here, claim certain tax benefits, and obtain fraudulent documents, so you can get a job. parntslyapparently, having a frt document to get a job you're not lawfully entitled to get is not something that gets you deported in this administration.
nonow parntsly apparently, thate policy, truth be known. it is an open invitation to every would-be immigrant to come to the united states unlawfully and to every visa holder who's here lawfully on a visa for a limited time to ignore the expiration date of their visa and just remain unlawfully in the country. that's the policy th the presidt has set. if the immigration laws are not enforcemenforceable by virtue oe fact, they are duly passed laws by the congress, then there is no real immigration law. anyone who wishes is free to come on visa, let the visa expire, and never leave, or if you can get passed the border in some -- past the border in some fashion unlawfully, you can stay. and nobody going to impact you. yet on march 13 after meeting with representatives of various amnesty groups, homeland
security secretary -- the top man -- mr. johnson reaffirmed that he is working to fulfill the president's request to reduce enforcement even further. it's astonishing that the president would order a review of enforcement policies, not for the purpose of repairing enforcement flaws but to weaken it even more. according to the march 14 "los angeles times" this year, an article quoting administration officials -- quoted the official as saying this. "the changes under review would effectively stop most depourations of illegal imgrantings with no criminal iks requests other than illegal violations." any fraudulent documents you filed to come here to get a job or get into the country unlawfully don't count. you can do this all day.
come on down. so this means that even fugitive aliens and those who have committed immigration felonies would not be exempt from enforcement. it would represent a total evisceration of immigration law, including those laws designed to protect the wages and jobs of working americans. i'm going to just say, parenthetically, we just had a vote on unemployment insurance, because we remain with a very high unemployment rate. we've extended the normal limit on unemployment benefits to people who don't have a job, and now we're doing nothing to protect american workers from people illegally here, taking jobs that they need to take, that they need for their families. in addition to that, the senate
passed a comprehensive immigration bill that would double the number of guest workers. the people who come here just to work, double the number, at a time of high unemployment. and we have a bill that will be coming up soon, i suppose, to raise the minimum wage. why? because wages haven't risen sufficiently. we're not happy about that. in fact, wages have been declining for over a decade. this is really a serious trend. dr. borjas at harvard atrippet tribute -- attributes a good deal that have to immigration, particularly low-income americans who are being hammered by this large flow of lower-skilled foreign workers. it is supply-and-demafnltdemand. why are not wages going up, colleagues? you believe in the free market? they're not going up because we've got more workers thank we've got jobs.s. mr. sperling, the top economic
advisor of the president, admitted a few weeks ago that there are three applicants for every job in america. the last thing we need to be doing is doubling the number of foreign workers brought into the country and not enforcing the law with regard to people who've entered illegally. isn't that correct? i mean, can't we agree on things like that? in 2012, go back to this -- the problems. and i want -- people need to know this. the mainstream media does not want to talk about it, they don't tend to report it but it's been out there for months, years. it's the reality. this is what a 2012 inspector general report of the department of homeland security, this is their own inspector general that serves at the pleasure of the
homeland security secretary. they issued a report that found that senior officials at uscis -- that's the citizenship and immigration service where this individual will be the he head -- they found that senior officials at uscis have been pressuring employees to rubber stamp applications for immigration benefits despite obvious signs of fraud in those applications. and kenneth blankus, president of the national immigration and citizenship council, the union representing 20,000 adjudicators, officers and staff, issued a statement in may of 2013 that echoed the findings of the report. this is what mr. polinkus's group found -- quote -- "uscis adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp
applications instead of conducting diligent case review investigation. the culture at uscis encourages all applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags and discouraging denial of applications. uscis has been turned into an approval machine." now, this is not acceptable. what are we paying 18,000 officers to do? aren't we -- don't the american people expect that they're supposed to be reviewing applications, not rubber-stamping them? and identifying people who may be terrorists or other -- or criminals or have no likelihood of producing anything worthwhile in america, who are not going to be successful in america, who may be otherwise unlawfully eligible to enter? while we turn down people that have the lawful right to enter
and put them on a backlog? it just doesn't make any sense. according to mr. polinkus, uscis has created an almost insurmountable bureaucracy which often prevents c.i.s. adjudications officers from contacting and coordinating with i.c.e. agents and officers in cases that should have their involvement. look, the i.c.e. officers are kind of like the criminal investigators. they deal with people that are apprehended inside the country, they deal with people who have been arrested or are in jail for one cause or another, assaults, drugs, violence, criminality. and so you're -- uscis is evaluating paperwork to see if somebody's qualified and they have some red flag and they'd like to call the i.c.e. officers to see if this is the same guy that committed an assault or an
armed robbery a few years ago and they're being discouraged from doing that. what is this? it's the exactly opposite of what we are paying them to do. uscis officers are pressured to approve visa applications for individuals that i.c.e. agents have determined should be placed into deportation proceedings. so they are pressuring them to a-- to approve these individuals who have not been approved. mr. president, i see senator warren is here and i will wrap up. i didn't realize she had been approved to speak at this time and i'll wrap up briefly. so we need to put an end to this lawlessness. the next director of uscis must ensure the integrity of our immigration system. it's just that simple.
as his mission statement calls for him to do. they must independent and able to stand up for the rule of law in what undoubtedly will be tremendous political pressure from an administration and pro-amnesty activist groups that seem to be dominating the agenda today and have little interest in seeing the great classical american rule of law enforced. mr. rodriguez, unfortunately, i'm convinced is not that person. he would not be the right person if he really had the support of his leadership. he just doesn't have the background. he's never managed something like a major of 18,000 employe employees. he does not know -- have any experience on the frontlines what they do every day and how they do it. but it's even worse, because,
look, why didn't they choose somebody that's experienced in d.h.s.? why didn't they choose a police chief military officer, someone who knows how to lead and manage a big agency like this, somebody with independence and integrity? why? because they don't want somebody with independence and integrity committed to the enforcement of law. they've already decided they're not enforcing the law and they want somebody like this protege to go into that agency who's not going to enforce the law. it's a very serious statement that i made and i think that's fund menltfundamentally accurat. i just am buffaloed that that's the fact. mr. jonathan thurly, the
constitutional lawyer who's written about government issues and constitutional issues for quite a number of years, professor turley has written recently and participated in a discussion where he said that what the president's doing with regard to immigration is beyond any justifiable utilization of prosecutorial discretion. that it amounts to a nullification of law by the president, who takes an oath and is constitutionally required to see the laws of this country are faithfully carried out. it's a real serious matter. we need to talk about it. this nomination sort of provides us an opportunity to recognize what's happening and the american people are going to need to speak up. we need to be able to change what's happening and to restore the great american heritage of law. i would thank the chair and yield the floor.
mrs. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mrs. warren: mr. president, it has taken us four months but we are finally on the verge of passing the long overdue emergency extension of unemployment benefits. and so i come to the floor this afternoon to urge my colleagues to continue supporting america's working families by raising the minimum wage. over the past 50 years, the value of the minimum wage has sharply declined. you know, in 1968, the minimum wage was high enough to keep a working parent with a family of three out of poverty. in 1980, the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a working parent with a family of two out of poverty. today, the minimum wage isn't even high enough to keep a fully employed mother and a baby out of poverty. this is fundamentally wrong. anyone who works full time
should not live in poverty. for nearly half a century, as we came out of the great depressi depression, we lived by the basic principle that we all do better when we work together and build opportunities for everyone. for nearly half a century, as our country got richer, our workers got richer. and as our workers got richer, our country got richer. as the pie got bigger, we all got a little bit more. that's how it was and that's how we built america's great middle class. but that's not how it works now for low-income workers. dr. aaron dubet of the university of massachusetts has explained that if the minimum wage had kept up with increases in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today. but it didn't keep up, so today, while corporate profits soar, millions of hardworking moms and dads are left behind working full time and still living in poverty.
you know, democrats aren't proposing to increase the minimum wage to $22 an hour. our proposal is much more mode modest, a raise to $10.10 an hour. modest by comparison, that is. but for at least 14 million children who depend on a parent whose wages would go up as a result of this legislation, this increase will make their lives a whole lot more secure. this bill is about the lives of minimum-wage workers but it is also about every taxpayer in america and about the corporate welfare that taxpayers are forced to dole out when these companies pay poverty-level wages. more than half of low-wage working families participant in government -- participate in government assistance programs for food, for health care and for other expenses. a study by researchers at u.c. berkeley and the university of illinois showed that we spend
about $240 billion a year providing benefits to working families through food stamps, medicaid and other antipoverty programs. when big companies pay poverty-level wages and then count on the government to cover basic expenses for their employees, they get a boost from every american taxpayer who helps pick up the ticket for food stamps and medicaid. taxpayer dollars aren't being used to -- are being used to boost the profits of private companies that don't want to pay their employees enough to keep them out of poverty. that's corporate welfare, plain and simple. i understand why some businesses might like to keep it that way, but american taxpayers have had enough of this corporate welfa welfare. american workers have had enough of this corporate welfare. america has had enough of this corporate welfare. this is an uphill fight.
those big corporations that pay poverty-level wages want to keep things the way they are. and why not? it's more money for corporate dividends and c.e.o. bonuses. so those companies hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers who lean on washington politicians to keep things exactly the way they are. minimum-wage workers don't have an army of lobbyists and lawyers and american taxpayers don't either. but congress doesn't work for those big companies. we work for the workers and the taxpayers and the voters who sent us here. it's time to call out this corporate welfare for what it is and it's time to fight back. it's been seven years since congress last increased the minimum wage. senator ted kennedy led that fight and i'm proud to carry that fight forward today. it's time to honor work again,
time to honor the people who get up every day and bust their tails to try to be buil build ar themselves and their children. it is time to increase the minimum wage. thank you, mr. president. i yield and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i presume we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. whitehouse: then may i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: may i further ask unanimous consent i be allowed to speak and that senators murkowski, begich and wicker be allowed to join me in a colloquy as they tom to the floor other. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. we're going to be coming to the floor today because the four of us serve as the cochairs of the senate oceans caucus. i know that the presiding officer from delaware has a keen interest in oceans issues as well, and we appreciate his support for the caucus. we have worked very hard in this caucus to find bipartisan common
ground on issues that relate to the seas and to our oceans and one of the areas that we have worked on is the area that is described in the jargon as i.u.u. initialing which -- fishing which means illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. the better word for it, the clearer word for it, the more accurate word for it is pirate fishing. these are fishermen around the world who go to sea and they fish above legal limits, they fish out of season, they fish for catches they're not allowed to catch, they fish in waters that they're not allowed to fish in, and then they come to shore and market their illicit product. when they do that, they hurt legitimate fishermen and they hurt american fishermen in two ways. first of all, fish migrate
around the globe and if they're knocked down and caught illegally in other areas, then the american fishery for that same species is hurt. the second is that that depresses the global price for fish. these people can flood the market with illegal fish, that drops the price through the law of supply and demand and now our american fishermen who are fishing lawfully, who are abiding blie the catch limits, fish in the right seasons and places, they suffer a disadvantage in the pricing when their fish get to market. so this is an important thing for our states, and it is not for nothing that we are all coastal state senators who are here to express our support for action on these treaties. in the u.s., commercial fish landings are over $5 billion in revenue a year, and
recreational anglers spend more than $25 billion a year. so this is big business. and pirate fishing is a big hit to our big business. pirate fishing losses have been estimated between $10 billion and $24 billion every year. when you consider that our whole recreational fishing industry is only roughly $26 billion, and this is a $24 billion raid, basically, on the international fisheries, it's important that we can -- that we can do this. so there are -- there's a package of treaties that have come out of the senate foreign relations committee, there are four of them, three are traditional fishing treaties covering the south pacific
ocean, the north pacific ocean, and the northwest atlantic fisheries. and you can only imagine how the north pacific treaty, what that means for alaskan fishermen and what the northwest atlantic fishery means for our northeastern fishermen. it is very, very important that we get these treaties cleared through the senate. i'm delighted that senator menendez, chairman menendez and his ranking member, senator corker, have passed these bills through the foreign relations committee with very strong bipartisan support, and i think that we have a really good chance to get something done in a bipartisan fashion that is good for our industry and also the right thing to do. it is simply unfair when international pirate fishers are able to knock down the fisheries market internationally and take
away product that we would otherwise catch. i see that the senior senator from alaska has joined me on the floor. i've just mentioned the north pacific treaty which i know has specific relevance to her state. we are in a parliamentary position where we have unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy, you and i and senator wicker and senator begich as they arrive, so i would now yield the floor to senator murkowski and let me say how much i appreciate her leadership. she has been the cochair of the oceans caucus, was significantly her initiative that we should focus on private fishing and i applaud all the work that she has done together with senator wicker who has now just joined us. so i yield to the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i'd like to thank my friend and my colleague from rhode island and the -- the cochair here on
the senate oceans caucus. as he's noted, this was an issue as we speak of i.u.u. fishing, illegal, underreported fishing and really that's too polite a term for it. it's really piracy of our fisheries. and senator whitehouse has been a very -- has been very engaged in working on so many of these key issues. i think that this is quite important, what we are discussing today, the positive step forward, not only for fishermen in my state but for fishermen around the nation. i would like to thank those who have been involved in this effort not only senator whitehouse but senator wicker as well as senator begich for their efforts to help advance these treaties. and i would also like to recognize senator menendez and senator corker for their support through the foreign relations committee process.
it should come as no surprise to any of my colleagues here in terms of alaska's role with fisheries, alaska leads all states in terms of both volume and value of commercial fisheries with approximately 1.84 million metric tons worth $1.3 billion. the see food -- seafood coming out of alaska accounts for 52% of our nation's commercial seafood harvest. our sport and subsistence fisheries are the heart of alaska, the source of economic livelihood for 80,000 alaskans who are directly or indirectly employed in the industry and i count my family as part of alaska's fishing families that see this direct benefit from a very well-managed, sustainable fisheries. but what we have seen coming
from really these acts of piracy, this illegal fishing, take for instance the crab fisheries. illegally harvested russian king crab has been a problem for us in alaska since -- since about the early 1990's. and in 2011, noaa law enforcement seized 112 metric tons of illegally harvested russian king crab that was being shipped to u.s. markets through the port of seattle. so what happens here, mr. president, is you've got -- you've got the russians who are taking -- overtaking their -- the king crab illegally harvesting them, and then effectively dumping them on the u.s. markets. what do you think that does then to the price of the crab that we are catching here lawfully in
the united states? it is depressing the price of crab. now, i know this, i mention my family is in the fishing business, we're in the crab -- my cousin is involved in the crab industry. they have seen -- they've seen the prices of crab go down between 20% and 25% because of what we're seeing from this illegal harvesting by the russians. so this is -- this is not just a small problem. this isn't something that has is just happening right now. this has happened, been happening for now decades, and it needs to be arrested. and i do want to take just a moment and express my appreciation for the amazing work that our u.s.a. coast guard does as well as the other agencies, the state department, the efforts they're making to combat pirate fishing. it's greatly appreciated. we have four treaties in front of us are, again, that will
help to level this playing field, ensure that our coastal fishing communities will face less -- less unfair competition from pirate fishing vessels that simply not have been held to the same standards and really the high fisheries management standards that we have here in the united states. two of the treaties that we're looking at are particularly important for my state, one is the port state measures agreement. this sets global standards to combat i.u.u. fishing and helps to protect our u.s. fishermen by keeping the foreign illegally caught fish from entering that global stream of commerce. hugely important for us. the other one that i'd like to highlight is the convention on the conservation and management of high seas fisheries resources in the north pacific ocean. this will ensure that the north pacific fisheries commission is established and also help to ensure that there's a fisheries
management regime in place to deter this i.u.u. fishing within the region adjacent to alaska. so critically important when it comes to our fisheries and our sustainability of our fisheries and how we manage our fisheries. we're trying to play by the rules. we expect others to be doing the same. so, again, i appreciate the work that so many have done to help advance these treaties that are before us. i see that my colleague from mississippi is behind me, and i would like to hear again from him in terms of support for these treaties, but also to thank him for his leadership on the fisheries caucus that he and senator begich chair. so with that i will yield to my friend from mississippi. mr. wicker: thank you. and, mr. president, i don't know if we're in a colloquy or i need to seek recognition, but i
do appreciate the remarks of the senator from rhode island and the senator from alaska, and i rise this afternoon to join them in wholehearted support of these four important measures and they are an important step in combating the term that we use, as the senator from alaska said, is illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, i.u.u. fishing, but i will also join my colleague in saying that it's nothing short of -- of pirate fishing. and it has broad economic, social and ecological consequences. i'm glad to join in support of these four measures. they have been hotlined. for those within the sound of our voices today that don't
understand that, it is an expedited way to move things on a unanimous basis, and i have every reason to believe that it will only be a matter of time, mr. president, before the -- before we have these hotline requests cleared on both sides of the aisle. now, alaska and rhode island have their interest in this. i can assure you, mr. president, that mississippi does, too. mississippi is home to many hardworking fishing communities. they depend on the oceans for their livelihoods. we are the sixth largest seafood-producing state in the country. many people might not realize that. we are second in the gulf of mexico to the state of louisiana. pirate fishing hurts our fishermen. our fishermen abide by the law.
pirate fishing puts them at a competitive disadvantage, as the senator said. these fishermen who are small business owners for the most part should not be penalized for playing by the rules. international cooperation and standards are needed to protect local commerce and the environment, and that is what the agreement on port state measures would do. under the agreement, vessels carrying illegally harvested fish would not be allowed to enter our ports and thereby dilute the market with fraudulent product. in this way, the agreement would protect u.s. fishermen, seafood buyers and consumers, while also supporting marine habitats, coastal economies and coastal communities. estimates show that pirate fishing costs as much as $23 billion per year globally and poses a serious threat to the sustainability of marine habitats. in parts of the world, it
accounts for up to 40% of the wild marine fish caught. other treaties under consideration address the high seas fisheries resources. as the senator from alaska said, one in the north pacific, yet another in the south pacific as well as amendments to the 1978 northwest atlantic fisheries organization convention, and these amendments simply update the conventions with standards similar to those that we in the united states use for our domestic waters. these treaties can serve as powerful tools for showing that the united states is committed to enforcing fisheries laws and encouraging other countries to follow suit. like other fisheries treaties that the senate has ratified, they would protect americans' interests and they would protect american workers. our commercial and recreational fishing industries are responsible for 1.7 million
american jobs and countless more at facilities for processing and distribution. so in summary, mr. president, these four measures are good for the economy, they are good for the seafood industry, they are good for consumers, they are good for small business people, they are good for our commercial fishermen. it is an opportunity for us to strike a blow for bipartisanship and internationalism, and i am glad to see the widespread support for this and look forward to the measures being cleared on both sides of the aisle. and -- and i see my other distinguished colleague from alaska here, and i will be happy to yield the floor to him and see what remarks he might have also. mr. begich: thank you very much. and let me say what you'll find with these issues, that they are
bipartisan. fish know no boundaries of political persuasion. they look at what is important to them. we like to catch them and eat them, and so it doesn't matter where they come from in the sense of alaska but also through the gulfs. again, i thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. senator whitehouse, thank you for organizing this and allowing the opportunity. i will tell you, we don't mean to outnumber you having two alaskans here, but we are so dedicated to this issue, i can tell you. having this opportunity to have these four treaties ratified is incredibly important for us. i know lots of times we talk about legal, unreported, unregulated. i like to simply call it pirate fishing. these are people who steal our fish out of our waters and then try to sell them back to us, and it clearly is what it is. stealing our stocks, packing our fisheries can have as i just mentioned the cost to our market of $23 billion a year nationwide, worldwide, because of these pirate fishermen and
fishing women. the alaska crab fishermen, for example, the people who like to watch a reality show, the deadliest catch is one of those. the deadliest catch guys tell me that over a half a billion dollars in lost crab because of the illegally imports that are coming in, whether they be stolen or labeled incorrectly. the human impact is even more appalling when you think about it. the working condition on these boats are deplorable. they don't call them rust buckets for nothing. they are. they are dangerous, they are unsafe. they have forced labor, human trafficking, slavery. you name the list, it's everything you can imagine in these ships. and again, you can call it what you want, but at the end of the day, what's happening is pirate fishing. they are stealing the fish. and again, illegal fishing industry is a stateless enterprise. there is no flags. they steal fish with impunity. they victimize their workers,
and we need to fight back and these treaties help do it. the coast guard, which we love our coasts. it doesn't matter if they are in alaska or around the country. they do an incredible job. they track down these criminals on the high seas and chase them down. you can see in this picture where they caught one of the ships, our coast guard cutters in the north pacific a few years back. and there's no question when they catch these ships what should happen to them, from my perspective. now, i'm a little more radical on this. i know we will have these treaties which is important. my view is they catch the ship like this, they can take the crew off, take the hazardous waste off and sink it to the bottom of the ocean. then we're done. and the people will get a clear message. now, i know some lawyers object to my idea. i recognize that. but let me tell you we had some ships. this one, for example, as you can see, it is not only a rust bucket, you can see the rust bleeding off of it. this was one of those ships that
was washed ashore -- washed into our waters from the tsunami in japan, and you can see a well-placed artillery shell hit it in the middle because they decided to sink it. so after the coast guard and some lawyers thought it wasn't a good idea, we had a piece of equipment that they then went ahead and sunk. i will tell you, you do this kind of activity, i guarantee you the pirate ship being -- the pirates of this country are trying to steal -- pirates in this world trying to steal a lot of fish will get a clear and simple message. but it is important to go after these pirates. and the coast guard -- in this case, there was an old rust bucket they sunk to the bottom. i have taken to the floor many times on the coast guard that they need better tools, more cutters, more patrol aircraft to do their job and increase their capacity going after these pirates. not only pirates on fishing and smuggling drugs and all the other work that these illegal ships are doing that we need to go after. we need to have tougher laws. that's what these treaties do. they are bipartisan.
the port state measures treaty tightens rules on seafood imports, provides for better inspections, lists the pirate boats so we know who to keep out of our waters. others deal with protecting high sea sea mounts and others need provisions specific to the north pacific, south pacific and the atlantic. they have been in years of negotiations. i applaud our teams at the state department. i know the many senators who have engaged in this issue to solve this problem, to create more tools for us to enforce. now we need to do our part. we need to support these treaties. again, it's a bipartisan effort. we need to support these treaties because it will support our fishermen, support our economies throughout the ocean states and the gulf states and throughout the states that have impact with fisheries, and we also need to do it because the rule of law, protecting and respecting the rule of law and human dignity that we insist on. when we think of the impact of these individuals that are
trapped on these boats, and literally the kind of human trafficking, slavery and the forced work that these guys are taken to on these pirate ships are appalling, and we should be appalled just by that fact alone besides the billions they steal from the waters and trying to resell or harvest the oceans illegally. let me sum up by saying again, i know my idea of sinking a pirate ship may be a little radical, but the coast guard did it on one ship and my view is why not more. but at least we'll have some treaties. maybe with this work on the floor tonight, and again, i thank you senator whitehouse for organizing all of this for those of us who care so deeply about the fishing industry. these will make a difference and it will have impact, and you can rest assured i will do everything i can to imear the -- gather the support to make sure these treaties pass. i thank you. thank you for allowing me the visual aids. words are great.
visual aids make impact. hopefully people see -- hopefully those pirates will see we're serious. this isn't just some movie that johnny depp is in either. we're going after those pirates. again, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. mr. whitehouse: the senator from mississippi and the two senators from alaska, i thank you for participating in this bipartisan effort. let me conclude by reading something that chris lacevski, who is the c.e.o. and president of bumblebee foods wrote to me. everybody loves a tuna fish sandwich and bumblebee has been in that industry for a long time. they are a proud american company, but tuna travel great distances. they are a fish that foreign pirates go after them and fish them illegally and fish them unsustainably and knock that population down. that comes home to roost for good old bumblebee foods. so here is what the c.e.o. of
that company said -- "i.u.u. fishing is a multibillion-dollar industry that undermines our global conservation and sustainability efforts." by that, he means his companies. "illegal fishing penalizes legitimate fishermen and processors, and it must be stopped. while the united states has done a good job at developing laws to detect and deter i.u.u. fishing, other nations have not. we strongly support the agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing because it creates an obligation for other nations to take action against i.u.u. fishing." so i will yield the floor. if any of my colleagues wish to continue the colloquy, let me just say that they do so with my gratitude for this bipartisan moment on the senate in support of the jobs that the fishing industry provides our
constituents. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i think we're waiting here for just a couple of minutes, if i am correct. i will use a couple of minutes to -- to speak again to those who come to our assistance when it comes to the enforcement of our fisheries laws, the men and women of our coast guard, noaa, some of our other enforcement agencies. senator begich has somewhat dramatically shown some of the scenes. this is not easy stuff out there. when you have somebody that we have reason to believe that has been operating illegally, in
violation of our -- of our agreed fisheries laws, more likely than not, they are not just going to stand by and come and let you board and take a peek. they're going to take chase. and as we are learning as we're trying to find some evidence of the missing malaysian jetliner, the oceans out there are pretty darn big, and usually the conditions are not one that you would want to go out on a pleasure cruise on. our men and women that are engaged in these enforcement efforts are -- are truly heroes to us in terms of the efforts that they make, the -- the energy that they place and really the risk that they place themselves at. and so day after day, as they -- as they cover our waters, as they work to ensure that there is safe and successful
management of our fisheries, their efforts to enforce these laws, their efforts to provide for a level of protection and safety, their efforts to bring the pirates to justice are truly to be applauded. so i thank you for the opportunity to just make that brief statement. i see my friend and colleague is at the ready hopefully to announce that we will be able to move passage of these significant treaties. mr. whitehouse: it appears that we will shortly be able to do that. this is a happy coincidence in which four senators in bipartisan fashion have come to the floor to support action on four treaties that will help protect our fishing industry. and it turns out that at this moment the treaties have been cleared for ratification on both sides of the aisle. and so in a moment i will be able to take us through those
parliamentary steps, but i think on behalf of all four of us, i should express my appreciation to chairman menendez and to his ranking member, senator corker, for the leadership that they showed in getting these treaties through the senate foreign relations committee. i know it was in strongly bipartisan fashion. i think it was actually unanimously bipartisan fashion. and i see the presiding officer, who is a member of that distinguished committee, and i want to express my appreciation to him, senator coons of delaware. it's good to be able to do these kinds of things in bipartisan fashion. it reminds me a little bit of our friend, senator enzi's 80-20 rule, that 80% of what we get done here without incident but
then of course nobody notices the other 20% we fight over and the fight gets 80% of the attention. so it's a happy moment when we can do something that is good for our industry and good for our fisheries and done in bipartisan fashion and done with with -- smoothly. can i proceed? very good. may i -- mr. president? i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, treaty documents 124, 121, 113-# 2 and 113-3 en bloc, that the treaties be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including presentations of ratification, that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable, that any statements be printed in the record as if read. further, that when the votes on the resolutions of ratification
are taken, they be in the order reported, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table en bloc, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: treaty doc 112-4, resolution of advice and consent ratification of the port state measures agreement. treaty doc 113-1, resolution of advice and consent ratification of the high seas fisheries convention south pacific. treaty doc 113-2, resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the high seas fisheries convention north pacific. treaty doc 113-3, resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the amendment to the high seas fisheries convention north atlantic.
mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask for a division vote on each of those resolutions of ratification. the presiding officer: without objection. a division vote has been requested on treaty document 112-4. all those in favor stand and be counted. all those opposed, stand and be counted. on a division counts two-thirds of the senators present having voted in the affirmati sr*e, the resolution of ratification has been agreed to. a division vote has been requested on treaty document 113-1. all those in favor stand to be counted. all those opposed, stand and be
counted. two-thirds of the senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution is agreed to. a division vote has been requested on treaty document 113-2. all those in favor please stand and be counted. all those opposed, please stand and be counted. on the division vote, two-thirds of the senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to. a division vote has been requested on treaty document 113-3. all those in favor please stand and be counted. all those opposed please stand and be counted. on a division vote, two-thirds of the senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is
agreed to. the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i thank the presiding officer. and if there is no further business regarding these treaties, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i would ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. the story of kansas is one that involves many people, many jobs, much ado about caring for others. our state is a state of manufacturing workers, factory workers, teachers, people who work hard, farmers, every day to make a difference in our community, state and nation. today i want to pay tribute to
one of those unsung heroes. in this case it's a businessman, a volunteer, a husband, a father who lived a full life before passing away in december of last year. alvin brensing was born and raised on a farm outside of hudson, a rural kansas town with a population of 125. after high school brinsing graduated with honors from salt city college in hutchenson. at the age of 21 started working as a bookkeeper. the kruger understood their american dream was going to be by establishing a tphrou -- flower mill. alvin was named as president in 1986. under his leadership the flower mills doubled capacity and grew
two and a half times its size. it was one of the last independent flour mills remaining in the united states and the bill produces hudson cream flour. many of americans will have seen the bag of flour with the great symbol and emblem hudson cream flour. that hudson cream flour has a reputation around the nation for a topnotch baking flour for consistency and texture. it serves as a tradition for this west virginia family who wrote the company saying this. after using hudson cream flour for all the years i've cooked, i can remember even my grandmother and mother using nothing else. i read for the first time the absolute satisfaction guaranteed and really had a good laugh. i thought if those people in kansas only knew the absolute satisfaction my family has enjoyed from their product. the things we pass down in our family are good morals, good cooking and hudson cream flour. mr. alvin's wife, after his wife died in 1993, he came to miss
the smell of fresh bread and soon began experimenting with the ingredients himself. alvin came up with three recipes, including al's cinnamon raisin bread, which is included on the -- the recipe which is included on the back of every hudson cream flour bag. alvin always put farmers and customers first. the current stafford county flour mills president, roll foote reflected alvin often said our word is our bond. if you agree to do something, you do it. while alvin dedicated most of his life to ensuring the success and future of the mill, he was also a tireless volunteer in the hudson community. brinsing took upon himself to maintain the hudson trinity cemetery where his parents and wife zelda are buried. he upgraded a shed on the property into a building where loved ones can now comfortably look up the location of their loved ones' graves.
alvin was known as the local weather man, collecting data from the weather service from the local grain elevator, and his daughters remember their dad turning the furnace on each sunday morning to heat up the trinity community church. his legacy of leadership and volunteerism is what will live on in, as the stafford county flour mills continue to support the community and educate youth whether through the county forage program or through the dozens of mill tours given each year. the mill also continues alvin's tradition of giving each school kid a five pound bag of flour after each tour to encourage them to experiment with recipes in baking. alvin taught through his actions that satisfaction in life comes from what you do for others rather than what you do for yourself. this is the legacy that i want to pay tribute today and this is the legacy that he lived and leaves behind for the next generation. we want those who follow him and us to know that they have their
chance to return home, put down their roots and raise their own families in places like hudson, kansas. our nation faces so many challenges today, but we must remain committed to doing what it takes so that tomorrow and every day thereafter our children and grandchildren have the opportunity to enjoy that special way of life in a place like kansas and to pursue their own american dream. madam president, i ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute and remembering the life of a great kansan, alvin brinsing, and i yield the floor. madam president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presidingofficer:the clerk e roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum call be terminated. i ask unanimous consent that we be in a period of morning business. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 346. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 346, s. res. 384 expressing the sense of the senate concerning humanitarian crisis in syria and neighboring countries and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. if there is no further debate on
the measure, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the measure is agreed to. mr. reid: madam president, i would ask that the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 394. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 394, designating april 5, 2014, as gold star wives day. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h. con. res. 88. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 88 authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the greater
washington soapbox derby. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. monday, april 7, 2014. following the prayer and pledge the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day, following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, that following morning business the senate resume consideration of h.r. 3979, the vehicle for the unemployment insurance extension postcloture, with the time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees prior
to the vote on passage of h.r. 3979 as amended, and as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thr-bl a roll call vote, madam president -- there will be a roll call vote, madam president, on passage of the unemployment bill which takes a simple majority at 5:30 p.m. on monday. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask the senate be adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the
>> i think most people don't remember because it not the most romantic aspect of institution. north, south, all states, minority rights. we don't usually talk about embedded in the constitution that every 10 years there'd be accounted the population. if you're going to have representational democracy, you have to know how many are representing and decide how many representatives in the house of representatives, which is the one part of the government to represent. quickly ms. from just how many people are there and where to the human curiosity to not been measured. what are these people doing? but is there employment? how many hours did they spend working? what is the nature of their home life? kind of begin this creeping growth of information about people rising economically even though it starts with who they
>> a discussion on documents taken by former nsa contract to her, edward snowden. only two people have the documents and are part of this 45 minute discussion. >> hello, please take your seats. and welcome back. this next event that promises going to be interesting. it is a skype's interview on the snowden revelation and it involves actually for skype's. that is a miracle of modern technology and it will either work or not work. it is very tricky. so somebody may go down. somebody may have a time delay which is happening with one of our three cats. i guess it is analogous to the
quadruple somersault ringling brothers done by nick rall vasquez in 1982. so please bear with that. we will have questions from time to time, but we have an excellent team of techies. i can understand anything they say. it is now my pleasure to introduce our interviewer, roger colin, the op-ed columnist for "the new york times." [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. so we are going to rely on much-maligned technology to try and bring this about and ignore whoever it may or may not be listening. i think it's fair to say that in the media land gave there is before and after edward snowden
his revelation about global nsa data vacuuming, backed with concrete evidence, the feeling i think that many of us have had since 9/11 that something had gotten seriously skewed in the appropriate balance between national security and press freedom, and the state common surveillance state, civil liberties. and all of this, edward snowden is a rockstar to sun. two mothers of course he is a traitor. here today via skype, we have the three journalists who were entrusted by snowden, chosen by snowden to be the recipients of top-secret nsa archives. here with us, laura partridge who is an award-winning
journalist. finishing a trilogy of movies on the post 9/11 america and the last movie concentrates focus is on snowden. along with glenn greenwald, she traveled to hong kong last may to interview the snowden. gilman is a senior fellow at the century foundation and a pulitzer prize-winning reporter over many years on national purity issues. glenn greenwald is an investigative journal.or in columnist now at first look media, which is the new journalistic venture because you will know is backed by ebay founder of media. he's also a former cost to national civil rights lawyer. well, hi, everyone. the most obvious facts about the three of you right now as you
are not here. i remember, glenn, when i met you in bpo spain there is a chance if you travel to the united states he would he arrested. so could i began by asking if you still feel that way and why you deal? >> even more now, since you are here, it was maybe a couple of months ago, there've been other episodes were senior national security officials fear what we are doing a speed not just and proper or dangerous, but actually criminal. the u.s. government has been running around spaces calling it criminal law. the head of the house of the committee expressly sad when i
was doing in particular was criminality empty brief. alexander -- [inaudible] selling documents, which what a lot of people for decades are doing. i think there's been an escalated attempt to create the series that could criminalize the journalism we are doing. i think as i believe now, it would be wrong to allow that kind do what we have a right to do and so i still think it's an honor about what not to be done. i'm sure there are factors that don't want that legacy. the lady there -- [inaudible] >> so are you going to do it? are you going to come back? >> it's inevitable exactly when
that will be. idea back it will be an interesting opportunity. there's other opportunities like that but certainly at some point and relatively soon the task of proposition that the united states guarantees the constitution. >> laura, you have been much harassed over several years and i am sure you share some of the same can her and said maybe you could tell us also how you feel about coming back. let me add this question. edward snowden appeared recently by skype at south by southwest with a backdrop of the american constitution. as mr. snowden an american patriot in your view?
>> thank you for having me. it is great to be here with all of my colleagues. in terms of coming back, the border for several years having my notebooks copied and computers complicated. i'm not worried about it. i don't think that contributes real. yet i will come back for sure. i have made the choice to get out of the country. i do hope that today we can spend some time because i themed the real topic of the real urgency of what we need to do is
talk about the good sources to bring information flow word. in that context, to reveal to people and programs being done in secret and were collecting, you know, entire countries. i think we all out of debt of gratitude. >> are there legitimate government secrets? >> sure, there are. the legal admiring a significant that director clapper used the word that the inspector general of united state and reference to reporters and arbiters that had
criminal law implication. so we've had the legal framework in the alien sedition act and the espionage act years ago with which a government we are talking about in the political culture that's created the barriers. my question is whether it will begin to shift back. i think there are legitimate national security secrets been charged with protect security of its people against external threat. the question is whether the boundaries are going to be drawn by the people, to some extent at the lovable principle that that the governor represents a record of the governor who gets to do all that on his own is secret.
>> do you feel it is essential? do run by the government responds on the stories you've done on the snowden revelation are the stories about the nsa quiet if you feel that is still an essential part of what we do as journalists? >> icon to the subject of my story, about every story and certainly i spent most of my years reporting on. so there are times when i'm pretty confident in what my independent reporter said and i tell them what the story is going to be. every now and again i discover it's time to go back to the drawing board. and sure, there is an opportunity to say we would ask you not to publish this story that. first of all, we need to require
them in the authenticity and truthfulness. if this were real, and second of all, i am the executive editor of the "washington post" has said there actually would be damaged that operates the public entrance. >> do you feel the same way, glenn? >> i mean, i think it may all be out there for what i've done. i have to say the editors have gone the same way they would go to anybody else to say this is what we tend to report about you. what is your comment? i think it would be particularly as white as a journalist when you want less information rather
than more. i have those in the past for a journalist spent lots of time sort of collaborating with the government and almost negotiating what it is they can be published. i think now with senior officials talking about the public's. in a knot at this price and want to become collaborative but the government under editorial board. i don't think the "washington post" and other newspapers had done very much if they've done any of that that has been the case. i think newspapers are there a lot. on the side of information request of the government, obviously they were eavesdropping for 15 months and finally we published in the book
and there's been lots of others. and though, in general i think it's each airport and realistically, legally, lawyers do you get the government the opportunity to have a request, but it is important that it not become the means by which the government can overly employ the reporting period and the stories i worked on, 99.5% of the time if you don't think you should publish that, those have been disregarded because they didn't have any rationale. >> there is a strong feeling among some people that edward snowden has threatened the security of the united state's comment that he an oath and then reneged on that. there have been stories since his revelation revealing nsa intercepted transmissions between taliban fighters were intercepted e-mail regarding assessments on iran.
that is not domestic surveillance. it is not spying on allies. it is that intelligent services all around the world to. so how is that illegal or immoral? and how is it not damaging to the united states of america? >> first of all, the oath that edward snowden took with a member of the intelligence community was they can't duchenne and a violation coming forward. i think it's really important to understand the process he used for whistleblowing because something so often distorted. edward snowden has not published a single document in the last nine months. they had dozens of others. >> he did not think he should be
in a position to decide which documents are published. he came to well-established newspapers announced the journalists of whom he was working to make those judgment and what is not. what i am getting for you for understanding, but i don't think all of this would be published. it would be the internet itself. stories about things like the story that has been published that shouldn't be, i didn't question about why the publish out to be posed to the journalists and not necessarily. i will say that things they do that all the time. "the new york times" reported
the israeli americans were engaged in incredibly sophisticated buyers. that may be the u.s. government will do, but does that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy. >> to you in your head driveline somewhere between newsworthy and endangering? >> sure, the reason why niner cannot enter the story it published many of top secret we are constantly engaged in that analytical process. it will award hiring people. they've done a very good job of that. the proof is that there is zero. not a little bit, but hero eliminated and any other individual with national
security. public it is very familiar, vague, descriptive rituals that government officials always use, but nothing specific or concrete. >> laura, please feel free to jump in on any of that would like to. i'd also like to ask you about the question you raise. how water sources to be protected? the obama edmonds ration, which jim bryson with the freedom of press ever, more than the bush admin is duration i sent earlier aggressive anti-of the campaign, targeting leakers and to trace them. going forward, what is to be done about that? >> sure, i would love to talk about those issues. first of all, our job is to protect us and we have to do
that and from the experience in the atpase that the government is doing to find out who they're talking to. we have an obligation to protect her sources. not only that, innovations also need to learn about how you use tools if they actually want to get sources to comair. one of the things most shocking to me is the lack of technological awareness among news organizations, which are really not that complicated to use if you want to protect your communication and there's tools we use every day on the internet and the bank account we use encryption and journalists who have tools so that they can be
privately. >> the most familiar accusation for any correspondence certainly in a sensitive situation like a war is your not a journalist. you're a spy. if we start using encryption or even elaborate encryption, isn't that going to reinforce exponentially the perception of those who might be detaining you that in fact you are an aging. you are not a journalist. >> there is encryption everyday when you connect the internet. i think one of the results of the disclosure is the encryption will be easier to use with the encrypted e-mail. that is going to become ubiquitous. the e-mails to the friend is meant to the people they are sending it to. i think that is the repercussion